The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church: Part 16; Three Reasons New Calvinism Is Here to Stay, and What We Should do About it
There is much discussion, even among New Calvinists themselves as to whether or not the New Calvinist movement has staying power. The best article I have read yet on that question is here: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/11/confessions-of-a-theological-swinger/.
Yes, no doubt, the “swingers” mentality is very prevalent in the movement, but that is far from being what drives it. The movement is here to stay for the following reasons:
Because the Scriptures teach that the last age will be framed by type “A” doctrines (Antinomian).
And New Calvinism is type A. “Legalism” is not a biblical word, but “anomia” is. Consider:
Regarding Love in the Last Days:
“….and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of anomia, the love of most will grow cold” (Matthew 24:11,12).
“Their hearts are callous and unfeeling, but I delight in your law” (Psalm 119:70).
The Latter-Day Judgment :
“The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do anomia” (Mathew 13:41).
“And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of anomia‘” (Matthew 7:23).
Fellowship:
“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with anomia?” (2Corinthians 6:14).
Already at work in the first century:
“For the mystery of anomia is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way” (2 Thessalonians 2:7).
The Antichrist:
Called “the man of anomia” once and the “anomia one” twice in 2Thesalonians, chapter two.
The purpose of redemption:
“….who gave himself for us to redeem us from all anomia and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works” (Titus 2:14).
Those who continually propagate New Calvinism state that “legalism” is the big problem in today’s church. And the high priestess of New Calvinism, Elyse Fitzpatrick, even claims there is no such thing as antinomianism and was praised for saying so by the who’s who of New Calvinism.
Flesh Appeal
The apostle Paul made it clear that the last age (marked by the first coming of Christ and ending with His return) would be marked by the masses heaping to themselves teachers that tell them what they want to hear. What is more appealing than Jesus does it for us and all that matters is where people stand on the gospel? Don’t worry, be happy. “You say they believe in snake handling? That doesn’t matter, where do they stand on the GOSPEL?” Can’t we just all get along? Yes, Absolutely!
Lack of Opposition
Believers are marked by a love for the truth (2Thess. 2:10). I am alarmed by the lack of zeal I see among today’s leaders (and parishioners following) in regard to truth. It seems the only exception is when teachers like Joel Osteen start squeezing the market share. Subtle antinomian doctrines like New Calvinism are far more dangerous than what Osteen teaches. He would scoff at the idea that Jesus obeys for us, and that the Bible is primarily a gospel narrative, and not for instruction.
A reader sent me an email and stated that he initially thought New Calvinism was a fad that would pass; and therefore, not worth fighting about. He wrote to say that he was wrong about that. In fact, folks have been saying that since the doctrine was New Covenant Theology (blatantly antinomian), then Sonship theology, then Gospel Sanctification, and now New Calvinism.
Nevertheless, we are commanded to demolish “every thought” that raises itself up against the knowledge of God. Christians are in the truth business, that’s what matters. Unity and peace are important, but that duo comes via truth; truth is what truly unifies. The apostle Paul commanded us to be unified in the truth, not compromise. Truth and peace come with a price—you can pay it now, or you can pay it later.
paul
Ps: still working on the Southwood video, “An Introduction to New Calvinism.” Never made one before, hoping it turns out ok.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
I thought it was a fad, too. But now even history is being rewritten to claim that “Calvinism” has always been correct doctrine. (The NC is a variation of that) When in fact, Calvinism basically comes from Augustine who was really influenced by Greek pagans.
Once the rewritten history is accepted, it is much harder to deal with. Mohler is claiming the SBC was originally Calvinist. Nevermind the Step Children of the Reformation who were hiding in caves from the Reformed magistrates because they totally disagreed with the Reformers on several important doctrines. Truth is, the SBC was made up of both and it was not really that big of an issue until now.
I realize you make a distinction between Calvinists and Neo Calvinists. I do, too. But I often ask myself why, if Calvin really believed what he taught, they had to legislate how many courses people could eat at meals in Geneva? Why all the rules if their doctrine was correct? Why did they have to force the elect to attend church? A wake up call concerning Calvinism is to read history and see the “lawlessness” evident.
LikeLike
Lydia,
A lot of what you are saying here concerns an area where I am fairly weak: Old Calvinism verses Reformed. Donn Arms says that there is a difference between “Reformed” and “Calvinism” which I see somewhat reflected in your comments. He also says the term “Reformed Baptist” is an (if I remember correctly) “oxymoron.” It’s an area where I need more study. However, I do know this for certain: The Forum taught that the Centrality of the Objective Gospel was the core of what drove the Reformation and a few guys here and there had rediscovered that fact, but the doctrine lacked a systematic theology. That’s where the Forum came in. Mohler et al continually put other people’s name on COG, and of course, it’s all a lie.
LikeLike
Paul, I look forward to the video. I also want to be clear before I make my next statements. I am unashamedly a Reformed Baptist (a Baptist who is a Calvinist, but not because I follow Calvin). I have engaged in a lot of discussions about Calvinism with those who would argue for and against Calvinism. However, I have never heard such a statement (and I have heard a lot of strawmen arguments and outright lies about and against Calvinism) as what was uttered above. I do not know how anyone could believe that, “Calvinism basically comes from Augustine who was really influenced by Greek pagans”. Anyone can make these types of statements but the problem is, they cannot be backed up. This statement at best is historically inaccurate and at worst, outrageous (I grant that Calvinism was influenced by Augustine but I do challenge the assertion that Augustine was influenced by Pagans). It is a demonizing statement against a system of orthodox belief within the Christian Church. If we want to have an honest conversation, then lets have at it but lets stop saying things that demonize a system of orthodox belief within the Church and saying things that are neither true nor helpful. Look, we can disagree but the reality is that these types of statements do not move the conversation between Calvinists and Arminians into meaningful and godly areas. I respect that people do not agree with me and my belief system and I hope we can have an honest discussion without the rhetoric.
LikeLike
Scott,
I will tread lightly here because my knowledge of Reformation history is a bit on the inept side. But if I recall correctly, Phillip Cary, a Reformation historian, has written some articles about Augustine being influenced by Plato et al. I read that somewhere, and I think it was Cary.
LikeLike
Lydia,
There is no question Mohler is right. Early SBs were Calvinistic. Read the Philadelphia Confession of Faith and the New Hampshire Confession of Faith. These were at one time both adopted by the SBs. Additionally, every founders and first Presidents of every SB seminary was Calvinistic. You don’t have to rewrite history to make it come out that way. I have no question you are right that Calvinism was never universal in the SBC. There was, however, enough Calvinism in the SBC to bring about these adoptions.
The issue you address is an important one. Why did Calvin and the others do what they did if they believed what they believed? I think the answer lies in their failure to understand that we are no longer under a sacral society such as existed in Israel. That Old Covenant has been fulfilled, and we are now under a New Covenant and understand that and other pre-Christian cultures. The Church and the State are separate. This is the reason I am a Baptist Calvinist and not a Reformed Baptist. I believe the latter is a contradiction in terms. It was truly the Baptist of RI, not the Puritans of Mass. Bay Colony who are responsible for the religious freedoms we or at least used to enjoy.
I believe you have read Verduin’s book, Reformers and Their Step Children. Long before the Magisterial Reformers came on the scene, there were those, such as the Waldenses who had come to believe what we would now refer to as Calvinism.
To me, it seems that we are “throwing out the baby with the bathwater” if we reject the Reformer’s belief in God’s sovereign activity in all of history, including the sinner’s salvation, simply because we disagree with them about the nature of the church.
LikeLike
“(I grant that Calvinism was influenced by Augustine but I do challenge the assertion that Augustine was influenced by Pagans). It is a demonizing statement against a system of orthodox belief within the Christian Church.”
Scott, please read outside of Reformed approved books. Read secular history, too. Augustine was early on a student of Manichaeism and later a student of the Neo-Platonism of Plotinus. Now, if those systems of belief are not pagan, I don’t know what is. Snippets of both of those belief systems can be seen woven into his Christian “philosophy”. Yes, I know he wrote against Manichaeism in Confessions. Still there are scholars who believe there are remnants of it in some of his beliefs concerning sex and the division of people into the elect and non elect…a precursor of limited atonement.
Scott, the hyperbole in your entire comment is unnecessary. We follow Christ. Not Augustine or Calvin. We can read him and about him and disagree. It is ok. And it is perfectly ok with me if you think I am ignorant. I stopped caring about such things long ago. :o)
You know, just the other day I was thinking that many so called Arminians have never heard of Arminius but every Calvinist has heard and knows of Calvin. Ironic, huh?
LikeLike
“To me, it seems that we are “throwing out the baby with the bathwater” if we reject the Reformer’s belief in God’s sovereign activity in all of history, including the sinner’s salvation, simply because we disagree with them about the nature of the church”
Randy, I really do not know who is doing such a thing…have you heard anyone here claim that God is not Soveriegn over a sinners salvation? . But I sometimes think you guys do not believe that God is Sovereign over His own Sovereignty.
LikeLike
“There is no question Mohler is right. Early SBs were Calvinistic. Read the Philadelphia Confession of Faith and the New Hampshire Confession of Faith. These were at one time both adopted by the SBs. Additionally, every founders and first Presidents of every SB seminary was Calvinistic. You don’t have to rewrite history to make it come out that way. I have no question you are right that Calvinism was never universal in the SBC. There was, however, enough Calvinism in the SBC to “bring about these adoptions”
Some interesting discussion about this here:
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2011/11/al-mohler-calvinism-and-baptist-origins-by-peter-lumpkins-3.html
Here is a snippet:
Has Dr. Mohler forgotten that the first Baptists were anti-Calvinists? In the Short Confession of Faith in XX Articles by John Smyth (1609), it reads, “that men, of the grace of God through the redemption of Christ, are able (the Holy Spirit, by grace, being unto them grace prevement [sic]) to repent, to believe, to turn to God, and to attain to eternal life; so on the other hand, they are able themselves to resist the Holy Spirit, to depart from God, and to perish forever”3. John Smyth held anything but Calvinism and apparently may have embraced some of the Remonstrant’ conclusions in “falling from grace.” Indeed it was approximately two and a half decades before a Calvinistic Baptist church showed up.
and here is more:
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2011/11/al-mohler-calvinism-baptists-calvinists-founders-peter-lumpkins-sbc-tomorrow.html
Interesting stuff. Lumpkins has done his homework.
One note: it is an oxymoron to say that “Baptists” have always been “Calvinists”. We are “Baptists” because of believers baptism and the Holy Priesthood.. Calvinists were baptizing babies and calling the magistrates if you didn’t. So much for the Priesthood! One cannot seperate Calvinism with his sacral system because you use his very name to define yourselves and your system of belief. An irony I cannot get past.
LikeLike
No hyperbole intended. Just factual and accurate statements. For the record, I am not a mindless drone who only goes around reading “approved” books. The crazy thing is that I used to be a flaming Arminian who hated everything Calvin, Augustine and anything with a reformed label. Oh and my name is Tim 🙂
LikeLike
Lydia,
I don’t believe I said that Baptist have always been Calvinists. That is clearly not the truth. What I did say is that the early Southern Baptists were Calvinistic. It is that fact Mohler is claiming, not that the first Baptists were Calvinists. I also acknowledged that even then, Calvinism was not universal in the SBC.
No true Baptist claims to be Reformed or Calvinistic in every sense of that term. Your statement seemed to indicate that Calvin’s belief in God’s electing decree could not have been valid because he constrained people to be conformed to Geneva’s rules. It was in that regard I wrote, “We shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bath water.” Simply because Calvin was very wrong about some things, doesn’t mean he was wrong about everything. Truth is truth, even on the lips of a fraud. We only claim to be Calvinists because that is a convenient short hand for the soteriological doctrines we believe. If I had to be saddled with the whole infant baptism and sacral society thing, I wouldn’t call myself a Calvinist either.
LikeLike
Lydia,
BTW, just so you know, I don’t usually call myself a Calvinist. Even if someone asks me if I am a Calvinist, my answer is, what do you mean by that? It is just that among those who know theological distinctions, Calvinists is a convenient label to use.
LikeLike
Sorry “Tim”. The Scott part got stuck in my brain. You look young in your pic. Are you a seminarian? pastor? Many are caught up in the YRR movement today and one makes assumptions.. It is quite the thing. Sorry if I made bad assumptions.
I am sorry you hated anything Calvinist or Augustine, previously. I have found that reading around the subject in addition to the subject is of great help to understanding history. While I do not hate the things of Calvin and Augustine, I see a lot of short sightedness when it comes to them. Yet, I agree with a lot of what they wrote, too. What is funny about Calvin is that a lot of what he wrote and taught, he did not practice himself. Strange, that. History is a nasty confusing bloody mess and there are many nuances to it. Instead of looking to such historical figures for doctrine, I prefer to look at what they taught and how that shaped history. In the end, they are just men. Not icons to follow.
LikeLike